Sri Ramesha N @ Chotta Ramesh vs State By Chikkajala Police ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1634 Kant

                                                   -1-
                                                          CRL.P No. 1617 of 2023




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                              DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

                                                 BEFORE
                                 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
                                 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1617 OF 2023


                      BETWEEN:

                      1.   SRI RAMESHA N @ CHOTTA RAMESH
                           S/O NAGANNA,
                           AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
                           R/AT C/O MILITARY NAGARAJU,
                           PALANAJOGAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI,
                           DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
                           BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561203.
                                                                    ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. LOKESH S.G.,ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.   STATE BY
                           CHIKKAJALA POLICE STATION
                           REPRESENTED BY
                           STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally signed by        HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
SHOBHA C
Location: High             BANGALORE-560001.
Court of Karnataka
                                                                   ...RESPONDENT
                      (BY SRI. B.J. ROHITH, ADVOCATE)

                            THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
                      CR.P.C. PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
                      06.02.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
                      JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT SITTING AT DEVANAHALLI IN
                      S.C.NO.15026/2018 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A. B. ALLOW THE
                      APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 311 OF
                      CRPC PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE B.

                           THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
                      THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                               -2-
                                       CRL.P No. 1617 of 2023




                            ORDER

This petition is filed by petitioner-accused under Section

482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order dated 06.02.2023

passed in S.C.No.15026/2018 by the V Additional District

Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Devanahalli, wherein the Court

below has rejected the application filed under Section 311 of

Cr.P.C. for recalling some of the P.Ws. to cross examine them.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.

3. The case of petitioner is that the petitioner is facing

trial before the trial Court for the offence punishable under

section 302 of IPC and for the other offences. The prosecution

examined few witnesses. Some of the witnesses were cross-

examined by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and

some were not cross examined. Therefore, an application was

filed for recalling the witnesses for cross examination and it

came to be allowed by the trial Court by imposing cost. Later,

the petitioner failed to cross examine the said witnesses and

also not paid the cost. Subsequently, one more application was

filed for recalling some of the witnesses for cross examination,

CRL.P No. 1617 of 2023

which came to be rejected. Therefore, the petitioner has

challenged the aforesaid order.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused

the records, especially, the impugned order passed by the trial

Court wherein it is found that P.Ws.3, 8, 9, 10 were not cross

examined by the learned counsel for the accused. The other

accused were partly cross examined and further cross

examination has not been done in spite of imposing cost by

the trial Court by allowing the application for recalling. Further,

learned counsel for accused is failed to cross examine the

witnesses and subsequently, the application for recalling filed

before the trial Court came to be rejected. However, without

providing an opportunity to cross examine P.Ws., if the

judgment is delivered by the trial Court, it would be definitely

ended in conviction and the judgment would be set aside by the

appellate court. That apart, the offence under Section 302 of

IPC is a punishable offence with life imprisonment or with

death, but the petitioner has a fundamental right granted under

Article 21 of Constitution of India. Such being the case, the

trial Court ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner-

CRL.P No. 1617 of 2023

accused to cross examine the witnesses i.e., P.Ws.3, 8, 9 and

10.

5. Therefore, the petition is allowed. The order dated

06.02.2023 passed in S.C.No.15026/2018 by the V Additional

District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Devanahalli, is set

aside. The application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is

allowed at the cost of Rs.3,000/- for each of witnesses. The

petitioner-accused is directed not to seek any further

adjournment in future. The cost could be collected in the final

judgment.

6. Pending I.A., if any, does not survive for consideration

and it is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CS